I haven't read the proposal (yet, but there's a small event in Germany that will come first). My previous (undeveloped) thoughts along this line have been that a 2 vs 2 partnership game would be easier to develop.

I haven't read the proposal (yet, but there's a small event in Germany that will come first). My previous (undeveloped) thoughts along this line have been that a 2 vs 2 partnership game would be easier to develop.

I've no problem with the idea of a partnership game, but what if you have 3 players? Or 5 or 6+? The original game is 1 v 1, and the rules above change as little as possible (in fact, essentially nothing) of the base game. The additional rules simply accommodate more players, but it's still every player for themselves and you're still playing Blue Moon. Try it, it works!

I haven't read the proposal (yet, but there's a small event in Germany that will come first). My previous (undeveloped) thoughts along this line have been that a 2 vs 2 partnership game would be easier to develop.

I've no problem with the idea of a partnership game, but what if you have 3 players? Or 5 or 6+? The original game is 1 v 1, and the rules above change as little as possible (in fact, essentially nothing) of the base game. The additional rules simply accommodate more players, but it's still every player for themselves and you're still playing Blue Moon. Try it, it works!

You'll note I said easier to develop, not hits everyone's requirements.

I haven't read the proposal (yet, but there's a small event in Germany that will come first). My previous (undeveloped) thoughts along this line have been that a 2 vs 2 partnership game would be easier to develop.

I've no problem with the idea of a partnership game, but what if you have 3 players? Or 5 or 6+? The original game is 1 v 1, and the rules above change as little as possible (in fact, essentially nothing) of the base game. The additional rules simply accommodate more players, but it's still every player for themselves and you're still playing Blue Moon. Try it, it works!

You'll note I said easier to develop, not hits everyone's requirements.

I did the above in a day, once I'd thought through the circular nature of it. It's just a trick-taking game at the end of the day. But then, I suppose a partners game might be done in half a day

I haven't read the proposal (yet, but there's a small event in Germany that will come first). My previous (undeveloped) thoughts along this line have been that a 2 vs 2 partnership game would be easier to develop.

I've no problem with the idea of a partnership game, but what if you have 3 players? Or 5 or 6+? The original game is 1 v 1, and the rules above change as little as possible (in fact, essentially nothing) of the base game. The additional rules simply accommodate more players, but it's still every player for themselves and you're still playing Blue Moon. Try it, it works!

You'll note I said easier to develop, not hits everyone's requirements.

I did the above in a day, once I'd thought through the circular nature of it. It's just a trick-taking game at the end of the day. But then, I suppose a partners game might be done in half a day

Still haven't read it. But a day isn't sufficient to test a game with any confidence it works well.

Still haven't read it. But a day isn't sufficient to test a game with any confidence it works well.

You're quite right, Chris, but this is a variant of an established game that works with a minimum of changes. Plus I didn't say I'd tested it in a day, I said I wrote it in a day The whole point to sharing it here is to give something to the community and at the same time develop the rules as people try it out and feedback to me.

Do bear in mind that these rules are unofficial. Whilst I do have some experience of official game design, playtesting, and development in the industry this is just a fan variant. It's needed because I, and I believe many other Blue Moon fans, would like a multiplayer variant to increase their play opportunities and widen their net of victims opponents.

It would be really great if you would just try it with a few friends before you comment further. I need Blue Moon fans and rules lawyers like yourself to engage in order to make this thing watertight!

I'll hopefully be trying this out with my Wednesday group tomorrow, but certainly with my Friday group on, er, Friday! Will report back asap

- The reward for getting to six (and I've no idea why the extra reward for eight) hurts people who didn't cause it. If (in a three player game) I drop out first, but the second player pushes the third player up, that penalises me as much as the second player.

- I want to sit on the right of the player with a people that produces big pushes. They are likely to cause drop outs, and I'll get the most from them, although really dropping out at the same time.

- There is a question about when player A plays a card with a neutralising effect that knocks player B's attack down. As player C do I also benefit? Especially note if it's caused by a leadership card, as those normally end with my turn, where it presumably doesn't carry on, but a booster or support card?

- There's a balance between big attacks and neutralising them. In a two player game, I play a big attack (could be not numerically big but tricky text) and my one opponent has one chance to counter it, else I win. But with multiple players any of them might have an effect (depending on last question, but a card like Cast Cataclysm will always benefit following players - depending on who it affects). That reduces the strength of big hitting decks.

- The previous is a special case of that balance is tough. Of course you may say by the time you've worked out things are unbalanced (if they ever are) you've had your fun. May be true.

- Another special case is fast versus slow decks. For example the Buka is very fast. But one on one I can cut down the speed of a fast deck by things like retreating. But other players may mess that up for me.

- How to handle disclose cards is a detail. I think there are some others ( I've mentioned one above) that target players. Disclose though has the who sees what and the handling of that issue.

Don't get me wrong, you've thought about some issues that arise. But not I think enough. But most need testing, rather than just thinking. That's the main reason I've never taken my limited thoughts in the simpler partnership game further. (Partnerships have their own new issues though, which I do not claim to have solved. In fact I don't claim to have even identified them all.)

Maybe that's a feature, not a bug? In the sense that you now have to do something specific (whatever the final version of the multiplayer rules say you must do) to get specific dragons. I still like how the Green Dragon works: simply make sure you retreat first, picking an opportune time to do so, in order to get it. There's a nice decision point there.

But I'm open to suggestion on the Red and Blue Dragons. I think linking them to the size of the fight (6+ cards) is a reasonable starting point: perhaps we could say if you have 6+ cards you can take the Red or Blue Dragon?

- I've no idea why the extra reward for eight

Only a sketch of an idea to utilise all of the Dragons. Now ditched.

- The reward for getting to six hurts people who didn't cause it. If (in a three player game) I drop out first, but the second player pushes the third player up, that penalises me as much as the second player.

Again, I'm not sure this is a bug as much as a feature. The second player shouldn't be pushing the third unless they feel strongly that it's their moment to win a fight. Dropping out first hurts, but at least you get the Green Dragon.

- I want to sit on the right of the player with a people that produces big pushes. They are likely to cause drop outs, and I'll get the most from them, although really dropping out at the same time.

On average, all preassembled decks should be causing the same number of drop outs, otherwise they weren't balanced in the first place? So seating shouldn't matter amongst players of equal ability.

- There is a question about when player A plays a card with a neutralising effect that knocks player B's attack down. As player C do I also benefit? Especially note if it's caused by a leadership card, as those normally end with my turn, where it presumably doesn't carry on, but a booster or support card?

Player B must match player A's power, and player C must match player B's power, and so on around the table. You must match only the power of the immediately preceding player, and your own power and effect cards hit only the immediately following player.

So in short, yes, C will benefit from A's effects. Unless A's attack causes B to retreat of course. In which case C will have to face A's effects too!

- There's a balance between big attacks and neutralising them. In a two player game, I play a big attack (could be not numerically big but tricky text) and my one opponent has one chance to counter it, else I win. But with multiple players any of them might have an effect (depending on last question, but a card like Cast Cataclysm will always benefit following players - depending on who it affects). That reduces the strength of big hitting decks.

With my previous answer I think you've probably got it by now, but if you play Cast Cataclysm it impacts only the immediately following player (unless the immediately following player folds, in which case the next player in line must meet your attack). You may therefore wish to reserve big hits until the opposition has thinned a little, if you can. The more players out there, the greater the chance your big hit will be matched or stymied.

- The previous is a special case of that balance is tough. Of course you may say by the time you've worked out things are unbalanced (if they ever are) you've had your fun. May be true.

Agree entirely. With so many permutations of players and decks in different orders I think it would be a near impossible task to pin down balance issues. Again, given that the decks are theoretically balanced against each other in the first place, no player should be at a particular disadvantage in a multiplayer game.

I'm talking about the pre-assembled decks here of course. Add in full-on deck building and who knows?

- Another special case is fast versus slow decks. For example the Buka is very fast. But one on one I can cut down the speed of a fast deck by things like retreating. But other players may mess that up for me.

I don't see it that way. With the crystal cards, you choose which dragon to attract to match what you have played. That's gone.

Quote:

In the sense that you now have to do something specific (whatever the final version of the multiplayer rules say you must do) to get specific dragons. I still like how the Green Dragon works: simply make sure you retreat first, picking an opportune time to do so, in order to get it. There's a nice decision point there.

But I'm open to suggestion on the Red and Blue Dragons. I think linking them to the size of the fight (6+ cards) is a reasonable starting point: perhaps we could say if you have 6+ cards you can take the Red or Blue Dragon?

- I've no idea why the extra reward for eight

Only a sketch of an idea to utilise all of the Dragons. Now ditched.

- The reward for getting to six hurts people who didn't cause it. If (in a three player game) I drop out first, but the second player pushes the third player up, that penalises me as much as the second player.

Again, I'm not sure this is a bug as much as a feature. The second player shouldn't be pushing the third unless they feel strongly that it's their moment to win a fight. Dropping out first hurts, but at least you get the Green Dragon.

That doesn't address the problem that your bad play hurts my position.

Quote:

- I want to sit on the right of the player with a people that produces big pushes. They are likely to cause drop outs, and I'll get the most from them, although really dropping out at the same time.

On average, all preassembled decks should be causing the same number of drop outs, otherwise they weren't balanced in the first place? So seating shouldn't matter amongst players of equal ability.

No. Some decks cause different numbers of drop outs, if they tend to do so for more dragons. But more importantly it's about correlation. A deck that produces a big hit is likely to make everyone else want to drop out at the same time, while others just keep hanging in there and win by attrition. It's unlikely attrition will hit at the same time. (Except this is based on a different understanding of the game.)

Don't get me wrong, this may or may not turn out to be a problem - I can no more do a definite analysis without testing than anyone else. But I'd put it on my list of concerns. Actually writing thecabove makes me worry that attrition decks might fare less well.

Quote:

- There is a question about when player A plays a card with a neutralising effect that knocks player B's attack down. As player C do I also benefit? Especially note if it's caused by a leadership card, as those normally end with my turn, where it presumably doesn't carry on, but a booster or support card?

Player B must match player A's power, and player C must match player B's power, and so on around the table. You must match only the power of the immediately preceding player, and your own power and effect cards hit only the immediately following player.

Ah, I missed that. That doesn't work. Take the Cast Cataclysm example. That's a useful effect because it allows you to stay in a fight against someone who has built up supports by removing them. If it only affects the following player, it's broken. But some cards do need to affect the following player, they make it hard to respond. There are more problems. I build up a big attack. Next player just plays a shield. The player after that gets a free ride. My big attacks just don't have real punch, and some decks just produce a few.

This really is a player order matters, but more importantly, is broken in terms of where text affects. (There are also problems with the obvious alternative of having to beat everyone round the table. It isn't easy.) But the text effects needs rethinking.

Quote:

So in short, yes, C will benefit from A's effects. Unless A's attack causes B to retreat of course. In which case C will have to face A's effects too!

- There's a balance between big attacks and neutralising them. In a two player game, I play a big attack (could be not numerically big but tricky text) and my one opponent has one chance to counter it, else I win. But with multiple players any of them might have an effect (depending on last question, but a card like Cast Cataclysm will always benefit following players - depending on who it affects). That reduces the strength of big hitting decks.

With my previous answer I think you've probably got it by now, but if you play Cast Cataclysm it impacts only the immediately following player (unless the immediately following player folds, in which case the next player in line must meet your attack).

Assuming I have the right card name (I want the one that removes all supports) as noted above, doesn't work.

Quote:

You may therefore wish to reserve big hits until the opposition has thinned a little, if you can. The more players out there, the greater the chance your big hit will be matched or stymied.

Which I think breaks how decks play. But needs was my main point, until I realised that things as noted above don't work as you currently have them defined.

Quote:

- The previous is a special case of that balance is tough. Of course you may say by the time you've worked out things are unbalanced (if they ever are) you've had your fun. May be true.

Agree entirely. With so many permutations of players and decks in different orders I think it would be a near impossible task to pin down balance issues. Again, given that the decks are theoretically balanced against each other in the first place, no player should be at a particular disadvantage in a multiplayer game.

I'm talking about the pre-assembled decks here of course. Add in full-on deck building and who knows?

I think deckbuilding helps and hinders. Helps in that people can build to the different environment. Hinders as you have the game playing because I really want to sit to the left of my friend Jon. Jon likes to build decks that have lots of shields in them. That will keep him in this game quite well. But following him, I get a pass too.

Quote:

- Another special case is fast versus slow decks. For example the Buka is very fast. But one on one I can cut down the speed of a fast deck by things like retreating. But other players may mess that up for me.

- How to handle disclose cards is a detail. I think there are some others (I've mentioned one above) that target players. Disclose though has the who sees what and the handling of that issue.

I think I've covered disclose/ reveal, but we'll see how it goes in play.

Reveal is easy. Disclose however if you disclose to all, all are getting benefits. If you only disclose to the Pillar player, that's a messy handling problem with it ongoing. It's a detail, and not a critical one, but an example of that there are details. (Incidentally, I think the Pillar will hurt, caterpillars are weak.)

Quote:

...most need testing, rather than just thinking.

So let's play!

I'll throw some examples in at the end of the rules asap.

I think you've got to rethink the just match the previous power, and who texts affect, as that latter really doesn't work.

I do think you are misunderstanding the purpose of the multiplayer rules. These rules allow you to play Blue Moon when you have a group of 3+ players, with a minimum of changes from the standard rules.

The rules work, but we have a clash of philosophy here. If you are a 1 v 1 purist and want the exact same game with the decks behaving in the exact same way, you are never going to want to play these multiplayer rules. To be truthful, you are never going to want to play any multiplayer rules, because inevitably the feel of game will change, as does any game that's playable with 2-6 players. But the rest of us are having fun over here

On to specifics:

- Crystal cards don't interact well with the described dragon handling...

I think you missed the update we discussed in the last post or two. You can select either the Blue or Red Dragon if you win a fight with 6+ cards. I'm still not sold on the rules on attracting Dragons yet, or the value of Dragons, but that's my next priority to improve.

That doesn't address the problem that your bad play hurts my position.

That's true in every multiplayer game with any degree of player interaction where order of play does not change, some more than others. For instance, in London, the cards I discard can be of direct help to the following player. If someone's playing badly you want to sit to their left. That doesn't make London a bad game.

In the Blue Moon multiplayer game described above the situation is actually less severe, because if you are a bad player you will end up retreating sooner and so be taken out of the fight. Alternatively, you may want to go easy on a bad player so that they have a better chance to take out the player to their left for you, making it preferable to sit to the right of them.

Some decks cause different numbers of drop outs, if they tend to do so for more dragons.

I agree, which makes the handling of Dragons all the more important. After the first playtest I think valuing them at 3 crystals rather than 2 would be more appropriate, but cards that attract Dragons maybe should also take Dragons in the multiplayer game. I will investigate...

Take the Cast Cataclysm example. That's a useful effect because it allows you to stay in a fight against someone who has built up supports by removing them. If it only affects the following player, it's broken.

It's really not broken, you just need to adjust your instincts about when to play it. If you need it for a player other than the next in line, save it for later.

There are more problems. I build up a big attack. Next player just plays a shield. The player after that gets a free ride. My big attacks just don't have real punch, and some decks just produce a few.

There is no problem. Just a new situation to challenge you. One idea would be to save big hits for later in the fight, when there are only 2 or 3 players left in.

...broken in terms of where text affects. But the text effects needs rethinking.

Nope, it works just fine. You defend against the player on your right, and attack the player to your left. If you do that well, those players become one and the same and you're 1 v 1 for the victory.

Assuming I have the right card name (I want the one that removes all supports) as noted above, doesn't work.

It works fine. It removes the supports from the next player in line.

"reserve big hits until the opposition has thinned a little" I think breaks how decks play. But needs was my main point, until I realised that things as noted above don't work as you currently have them defined.

Nothing is broken, everything works as intended. Note, decks will not behave the same way as in the 1-v-1 game. It's unnecessary for them to do so. Many games play very differently depending on player count.

Reveal is easy. Disclose however...

Again, this is a non-issue. Disclose or reveal only to the player of the card, or the player of the card discloses or reveals to the next active player, depending on card wording.

I think you've got to rethink the just match the previous power, and who texts affect, as that latter really doesn't work.

Tonight, John (Terrah), Mike (Pillar), Dan (Khind), and I (Vulca) met to play Blue Moon as a multiplayer game using the multiplayer rules found elsewhere on this forum. The experiment was a roaring success! Mike, for whom this evening was his first experience of Blue Moon, commented that he couldn't imagine it as a good two player game However, the other two players did have some experience with the two player game.

The first fight saw an early retreat from the Khind, but then became a protracted affair of 6+ cards for the remaining three players, eventually being won by the Pillar.

Further fights were less extended, with one fight being won with the first card played, a 7 in Fire.

The Khind couldn't get their gangs going until the last but one fight, and by then it was a case of too little too late. By the time the Vulca ended the game by exhausting their deck and hand, the scores read: 15 Terrah (including all three dragons), 13 Pillar, 12 Vulca, 11 Khind. A great time was had by all!

I think I quite understand the purpose. My point is that in the two player game decks behave differently. For example some find it easier to get to six cards some can produce bigger attacks, some have more attrition characteristics. But, to a reasonable degree, they are balanced. If you change the game to the extent that is necessary to make it multiplayer, there's a very good chance the balance will be lost. I have my guesses which kinds of behaviour will do better and worse, but guesses don't prove anything, testing is needed. (And one game is just starting.)

There's also a real issue over whether just matching the previous player is the right way to go. And the idea that texts just affext tte next player is definitely broken. (Should they affect all players. Or a chosen player. Or some one way and some another? That's also not obvious.)

(I haven't had time to read beyond the first paragraph of last post. Time to sleep and hit the halls at Spiel again tomorrow.)

Edit: I took a quick look. You really are missing the point that some texts are irrelevant or greatly weakened if just applied to the player to the left. Consider with two players. You set a power level. Some of my effects are to reduce your current effectiveness so I can continue. Some are to make you replying to what I do harder. (Some are both of course, but ignore that for now.) Once you switch to multiplayer, the former need to affext the player to your right, the latter need to affect the player to your left. Only affecting the player to your left makes the former texts useless. That especially applies to texts on leadership cards, as by the next player's turn the card is no longer active, it has no effect on the player to the left. This really is fundamental to how texts need to be considered.

There's also a real issue over whether just matching the previous player is the right way to go.

Works just fine.

Dearlove wrote:

And the idea that texts just affext tte next player is definitely broken.

There you go with the 'definitely broken' thing again Actually it works well. Elegantly even.

Dearlove wrote:

You really are missing the point that some texts are irrelevant or greatly weakened if just applied to the player to the left.

No, I'm really not missing any of your points, I simply disagree with them. We've already agreed the decks behave differently. Some cards are weaker if not saved for the 1 v 1 situations that will occur towards the end of a fight. That's a decision point for the player and a feature, not a bug. We're finding that the game gives a good, close contest between players of roughly equal skill.

There's also a real issue over whether just matching the previous player is the right way to go.

Works just fine.

Dearlove wrote:

And the idea that texts just affext tte next player is definitely broken.

There you go with the 'definitely broken' thing again Actually it works well. Elegantly even.

Here's a clue. I know what I'm talking about. I'm actually the expert on this game. If I say broken, and you don't think so, ask me why, because I'm going to be right.

Here's a simple example. Enthrall Opposition. "On this turn, your special power texts are ignored. (This card has no effect if opposed by Tittertweet or Laughing Gas.)" Under your rules, his highly useful card has no effect. Because in my turn when I play it, it only affects the player to my left, but his texts don't affect me. By his turn his texts still don't affect me. They might make it harder to play if ignored, but that's irrelevant too, because leadership cards only last in my turn.

That's a clean simple example of a card you've broken. But it's an example of that text only affecting left cuts out a whole category of uses. Text is about affecting what happened before my turn as well as after. As I said and you brushed aside.

You're setting yourself in the position of a game designer. Great. But in that position you need not to get too attached to what you've come up with. I've seen professionals (plural) modify or drop (modify more often) an idea when someone points out a problem, not defend them beyond the point where they break.

Quote:

Dearlove wrote:

You really are missing the point that some texts are irrelevant or greatly weakened if just applied to the player to the left.

No, I'm really not missing any of your points, I simply disagree with them. We've already agreed the decks behave differently. Some cards are weaker if not saved for the 1 v 1 situations that will occur towards the end of a fight. That's a decision point for the player and a feature, not a bug. We're finding that the game gives a good, close contest between players of roughly equal skill.

No, really, you just haven't played enough. There are more problems where that one came from. How are you handling mutants? If you just do what the text says then think more carefully - that's about the player to your right, not left. Ditto interference cards. Chosen Ones? And more.

If you come up with an idea such as that texts only go left, you need to examine the game from top to bottom to see if it breaks anything. It does. You could try an inelegant set of hacks (e.g. leadership cards only go right) but that never ends well. You can ignore the problem, which fails as soon as you publish, or you can go back and rethink. There is a reason the apparently simple generalising to more players wasn't obviously solved years ago.

Here's a clue. I know what I'm talking about. I'm actually the expert on this game. If I say broken, and you don't think so, ask me why, because I'm going to be right.

I'm not impressed, Chris. More on that later.

Dearlove wrote:

Here's a simple example. Enthrall Opposition. "On this turn, your special power texts are ignored. (This card has no effect if opposed by Tittertweet or Laughing Gas.)" Under your rules, his highly useful card has no effect. Because in my turn when I play it, it only affects the player to my left, but his texts don't affect me. By his turn his texts still don't affect me. They might make it harder to play if ignored, but that's irrelevant too, because leadership cards only last in my turn.

That's a clean simple example of a card you've broken. But it's an example of that text only affecting left cuts out a whole category of uses.

Chris, it's your example that is broken. The player to your left's text is ignored by the player to their left. Your Enthrall Opposition card takes full effect. I don't get what you're finding so difficult about this, other than you haven't tried it. But what I do get is that you're not going to try it, and that's fine, but in that case just move along and refrain from comment.

Just to reiterate for anyone else reading this exchange (but anyway it's clear from the rules), you modify your attack against the player to your left according to the text of the cards played by the player to your right.

Dearlove wrote:

Text is about affecting what happened before my turn as well as after. As I said and you brushed aside.

No, I agreed with you. You match your opponent's attack and attack your opponent in turn. This holds true whether you have two opponents either side of you or a single opponent in front of you.

Dearlove wrote:

You're setting yourself in the position of a game designer. Great. But in that position you need not to get too attached to what you've come up with. I've seen professionals (plural) modify or drop (modify more often) an idea when someone points out a problem, not defend them beyond the point where they break.

This isn't the first highly ironic (not to mention patronising) comment you've made, Chris. In this case, the irony is that you're pontificating about attachment to design and being prepared to kill your babies, but way back in my original post I am quite deliberately asking for people to try the thing and feedback constructive criticism to me to enable the rules to develop. I'm clearly precious about nothing. This makes your comment both offensive and redundant.

Dearlove wrote:

You really are missing the point that some texts are irrelevant or greatly weakened if just applied to the player to the left.

No, I'm not, if for no other reason than they aren't. I say to you again, yes, I know the decks behave differently, and yes, some individual cards are made a little more or less valuable, but that's fine. It's a feature. We (which clearly does not include you, and that's fine) have a new game mode to explore and enjoy!

Dearlove wrote:

How are you handling mutants? If you just do what the text says then think more carefully - that's about the player to your right, not left. Ditto interference cards. Chosen Ones? And more.

Another broken comment, Chris. To reiterate, the rules (that you haven't read properly by your own admission) are very clear: text on your cards refers to the player to your left. 'You' and 'your' refer to the player on your left.

Let's take Jor-mum-Gand as an example: "I may only play this card if there are at least three played cards on your leader...". So, I may only play Jor if the player to my left has at least three played cards on their leader. Simple. Further, Jor's shields, when played, allow me to match the attack of the player to my right. If you think about it, it's actually working just as it does in a two player game. That's the beauty of this variant, it changes very little about the standard game.

Dearlove wrote:

There is a reason the apparently simple generalising to more players wasn't obviously solved years ago.

Apparently not. Actually, it was solved a few years back too, in more or less the same way, as I nod to in the original post. We (which clearly doesn't include you, but that's ok) just have the movement of Dragons needing further improvement now.

The big problem here, Chris, as I've intimated before, is that you are approaching this like a submission for official publication, or as though I'm presenting it as a finished design. It isn't. It never has been, but you wouldn't know that because you're so right you didn't even need to read it It's simply a workable response to the idea that lovers of the game would like a way to introduce new players or play with friends and all of their decks at once in a group setting. It's the work in progress of a modest brief. It's working fine according to its own terms of reference.

Dearlove wrote:

Here's a clue. I know what I'm talking about. I'm actually the expert on this game. If I say broken, and you don't think so, ask me why, because I'm going to be right.

Ok, back to this. Chris, this is really unattractive. IMO these are the words of an arrogant, bullying, self-aggrandising boor. I hope you're not really like that, but I think you need to examine very carefully why you feel so threatened and are so intent on quashing other people's fun here. Your first criticism came before you had even read the variant, by your own admission. Further criticisms came from you having skimmed, but certainly not having tried the variant, by your own admission. Think about all of that and question your motives, because your attitude makes no sense.

In summary, I'm really not interested in discussing Blue Moon any further with you, but I'd hoped you might have taken that hint a few posts back when I put it politely. Now I find you frankly offensive and obnoxious. Go to another thread that suits your approach to the game better. Please leave this one alone, it's not for you.

Please don't be dissuaded from working on your ideas. We all enjoyed our first attempt even though it raised some questions and issues to go away and work on.

I think you are seeking a different outcome to what Dearlove would wish to see. There are always going to be a few rough edges in forcing this game into a multiplayer but we can live with this if it means we get to play the game more often and introduce it to more players. Ultimately, others can choose to play it or not and if they do, decide for themselves whether it is a workable game that is fun to play.

Please don't be dissuaded from working on your ideas. We all enjoyed our first attempt even though it raised some questions and issues to go away and work on.

I think you are seeking a different outcome to what Dearlove would wish to see. There are always going to be a few rough edges in forcing this game into a multiplayer but we can live with this if it means we get to play the game more often and introduce it to more players. Ultimately, others can choose to play it or not and if they do, decide for themselves whether it is a workable game that is fun to play.

There are two sorts of issues. One of them is that any sort of multiplayer rules might unbalance things. But while it's possible to make predictions, it takes testing to find out. The predictions just help you know what to look for in your tests. The other is, do you actually have a well-defined set of rules without any obvious major problems. (Minor problems of very specialist cards like crystal cards are worth thinking about, but aren't a deal-breaker until the final stages of design.) But there can be major breakage, and text only applying one way is a major breakage. And until that's sorted, you don't have a real design.

(It does lead to an interesting exercise in categorising text according to what's usually past/present not right/left. But a solution by ad hoc cases is not going to work well, especially as some cards gain their power from both.)

I will be starting a new thread to support this multiplayer variant, because frankly I am quite annoyed that Chris Dearlove has hijacked this one to air his particular brand of insecurity and vitriol in a manner completely against the spirit and intent of the original post.